What games are you playing now?

October 20th, 2010, 01:17

@skavenhorde - Which version did you play? I'd like to give it another chance, but I need to get my controller working, or buy a new one. I don't like the hard-coded PC configuration, and it definitely wasn't designed for keyboard+mouse.

@Sammy - Are you playing on a 480i tv? I used to have the same problem with my PS3 games until I hooked it up to my new monitor.

Sucks that I will not have the time for Fallout: New Vegas until 2 weekends from now. Also can't afford it really but I guess it's a good cause to starve for.

— Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine

Nah, I'm playing on some cheapie old television JDR. Dead rising seems to be the only game that gives me the text problems, so i'm writing it off til i get a better television or something.

I'm trying to get thru Disciples 2, but the mission where you save the elves from the Undead… gah! it takes FOREVER to play! There's like 20 different mob parties running around the map, and ALL of them have to move between each of my moves. I'm almost at the end, but i seriously hope the rest of the Empire campaign doesnt have this kind of go-make-a-sandwich-between-turns kind of delay.

@JDR I'm playing the latest version, whichever that is now. I just got done playing it around a week ago. To truly get everything out of the game you have to pass it a few times. It's impossible to do everything the first time around and almost insanely difficult to take on the psychos.

I don't have a gamepad so I can't help you with any fixes for that. I didn't feel that the controls were that awkward for the PC. Seemed pretty normal to me with the usual WSDA and mouse controlling your view and attack.

One thing I read about Dead Rising 2 is that in the first one it was a pain in the butt to keep the people you were saving alive. In this one there is no such problem. They can hold their own and can squirm through even large mobs of zombies.

The single best part of this game is the beginning with the slow zombies with the occasional faster than normal one. I never really played a zombie action game before (refuse to get LFD1 or 2) and this was just like I was in the movies with the hordes of "George A. Romeo" zombies hounding my every move. They're not a big deal when in light packs, but if you get surrounded then things get complicated. Plus, I ran out of weapons a few times when I first started playing and had to use whatever was on hand. Knocking down zombies with a giant stuffed rabbit has never felt so good

My biggest gripes with the game was that there was no difficulty slider and the timer. I would of loved to just look around the mall/casinos smashing zombies and searching around for goodies. It would have been nice if I could turn up the difficulty as well. I didn't die too many times. Most of those times were against the psychos. I only died a few times against the zombies.

My most loved feature were the psychos. Ted and Snowflake were perfect. It was the only time I ever felt any kind of emotion in this game other than panic. The cut-scene was heart wrenching and the music that went along with that cut-scene was perfect.

The other great psycho was Slappy from the "Everybody Knows Slappy" mission. I won't spoil anything about that mission other than to say that once again the music that went along with that psycho was perfect and Slappy himself was disturbingly funny.

Originally Posted by skavenhorde
My biggest gripes with the game was that there was no difficulty slider and the timer. I would of loved to just look around the mall/casinos smashing zombies and searching around for goodies.

Bingo, that is what really kills it for me. I think the environments are very well done, but I hate that they decided to make everything timed. The locations are set up in a sandbox style, but you can't enjoy them at your leisure. I also don't like that so much of the game is spent escorting people.

I ended up playing it for a bit longer last night. I used a key-mapper to configure the controls to my liking, but I don't think it's enough for me to attempt a full playthrough.

To each their own as they say. If you want to enjoy it as a sandbox then restart the story (you keep your character) and just fail the first mission. Then you don't have to worry about that freakin timer anymore. I did that one time and it was a lot of fun just going around exploring. You'll find some cool hidden spots too. I got the worst possible ending though

— “ Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction.“ (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)

I'm not saying it's "bad" or anything, just that it could have been better. Imagine a larger area, no timer (at least not all the time), and a greater variety of quests types. They also could have done a much better job with control options, but that's something that Capcom has always struggled with for some reason.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I'd like to see them make an RPG with that engine.

Couldn't agree with you more.

Get rid of the timer. Have some interesting NPCs this time around.

I still applaud them for the Snowflake cutscene. It's difficult for a game to evoke a response from me, but that one got to me. Maybe it's because I love cats and the psycho for that one was very well done. I would not have killed him if I had any kind of choice in the matter, but the kitty needed to be saved damn it

JRPGs should be taking notes on this. My main character wasn't going all emo. The scene conveyed the horror of the situation just fine. By doing that it actually invoked a response from me. BTW, I do realize that this was made by Capcom. If more of the Japanese companies stopped making my character get all emotional I might actually like some JRPGs.

All these JRPGs that try to convey this through the main character by having him cry or whatnot just don't get it. The setting and narrative is enough to do this. I just read this drivel: Western RPGs are about emotional alienation and it pissed me off to no end. Not sure why since I couldn't care less about what that "gamer" thinks, but it may be because I've heard this response many many times when it comes to western RPGs. I'm sick and tired of people slamming them because the main characters are emotionless. THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE!!! Go play some D&D you anime loving nerfherder.

I'm playing Fallout New Vegas now and loving it. There is only one huge problem. THE WEEKEND IS TOO SHORT!!!! I need this weekend to have a few more days in it before I have to go back to work

Here is another example of conveying some emotion. In there very beginning of F:NV you're given a chance at saving someone. I get there and she is almost dead. I frantically do everything I can to fight off the attackers and win. She makes it, but barely. This did invoke a response in me. I wanted to get her out alive. There was no need to tack on forced emotional responses from my main character. The setting and narrative is enough. Also Fallout New Vegas has a few missions in it where it made me stop and think about what would be best for that community? What do these people need?

Originally Posted by skavenhorde
(…) the main characters are emotionless. THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE!!! Go play some D&D you anime loving nerfherder.

[rant]While I personally like stolid and outwardly unemotional characters, the 'hahaha-take-this-you-stupid-monster-I-don't-care-why-you're-here-now-hand-over-your-wallet-and-die' attitude of (A)D&D was what turned me off that game shortly after 2nd ed. Experience points for money? Now come on - at least I want to experience alternate worlds when role-playing… not the NY stock exchange. The (A)D&D mechanics made role-playing more of a challenge than anything else which is why I started to search for and discovered several other RPGs I actually liked because they focused on role-playing, not on looting some unfortunate wandering monsters.

And for me all of these computer and video 'RPGs' aren't RGPs, just Gs. Some are good Gs, some are not so good Gs, but none of them are RPGs. Only pen and paper RPGs are RPGs.[/rant]

For me CRPG and RPG go hand in hand. I can roleplay my characters. The choices are somewhat limited because of the technology, but with a good imagination it works out just fine for me.

I wasn't talking about the "numbers" of D&D. Although I have no idea why you played your characters without pretending to be them. You roleplayed them the way you wanted just like any other rpg it wasn't some emotionless world. You needed to play better adventures

However, I totally agree that the numbers got a bit confusing, but we never really followed them line by line. If we didn't like something we got rid of it or changed it. Did that for some of the rules in Dragonlance. There was no D&D overlord to say we couldn't.

Anyways, my whole point of that little rant wasn't even about P&P. I just added that in a rant fit rage I meant in CRPGs and P&P RPGs you ARE the character. To see your character feeling a certain way when you don't or don't think the character should is strange. It sometimes breaks a game for me.

Originally Posted by skavenhorde
All these JRPGs that try to convey this through the main character by having him cry or whatnot just don't get it. The setting and narrative is enough to do this. I just read this drivel: Western RPGs are about emotional alienation

The western male rolemodel is an artificial construct that have been questioned more and more in recent times. Whether the rolemodel always existed or not it's difficult to know, but much of it seems to have grown in the victorian era. West only recognized one gender up to then (much thanks to Aristotles ideas about females being an incomplete male). At this time it was common to believe that what is decide what ought to be. (Social Darwinism is rooted in this belief as well). Since males had strong physical features it was assumed that their mind should also be strong and resilient.

The male rolemodel can be divided into four demands put on a boy. Boys who do not conform to this risk social sanction, even by females who still support "classic" rolemodels;

1. No sissy stuff
A male shouldn't do things associated with femininity. Not only is this one of the main components of male chauvinism and female submission (females were expected to take everything males didn't want), it actually demanded the male to sacrifice a part of his humanity. Females can today do everything associated with being male, but there are still plenty of things shunned if a male do it.

2. Big wheel
Males are considered to be the important wheels that keeps things going. But only males who are important, powerful or successful have value. Males who do not have these strengths have no value. Being the big wheel usually drive fathers into heartattacks even when his family ask him to slow down. He feel compulsed to continue to "support his family" when he can't. He feels that if he do not keeps things going, as society expects of him, even when everyone around him asks him to stop.

3. Sturdy Oak
Males is expected to be strong and independent. Do not allow your woman to control you. Do not ask for directions. Do not ask for help, including medical if it can be avoided. Males "know" everything even when they do not, which tend to earn them Darwin awards.

4. Give'em hell
Males should be more powerful than anyone else and should display this strength in violence if necessary. This tend to be the drive in honor killings and the need to revenge rather than forgive and move on.

There are quite a few issues associated with this social demand such as emotional issues (guilt over ones own emotions) which may lead to frustration and even violence (often directed against whomever the male love). Young males also have an excess suicide rate compared to young women. If the male cannot be strong and independent by other means, he can at least be strong enough to take his own life.

These issues can be compared with female hysteria (pointed out by Freud in the 20th century). Women were indoctrinated into feeling guilt about sexual needs which caused strong physical reactions. Luckily the female role model have became questioned and reformed, but the male rolemodel is still widely unquestioned and many still feel strong guilt about their emotions. Although this social structure have changed a bit in recent years. Males are now more allowed to have and show "sissy" emotions. It's also more common to see males with pink skirts, long hair and earrings.

To cure society of this situation, young boys need to be taught to be secure in who they are. If he is not secure and feel unaccepted he is likely to try to chase the male rolemodel. Those who are in the strongest need to show their malehood to others, and demand other males to approach this rolemodel, are also the ones most insecure about themselves.

— Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine

Originally Posted by skavenhorde
For me CRPG and RPG go hand in hand. I can roleplay my characters. The choices are somewhat limited because of the technology, but with a good imagination it works out just fine for me.

Same here.

I wasn't talking about the "numbers" of D&D.

I know .

Although I have no idea why you played your characters without pretending to be them.

I didn't. But not looting, murdering and pillaging meant you were excluded from playing with the rest of the group once they had leveled up ('Sorry, this adventure is for characters of levels XXX only - take a prerolled char or don't play'), at least as long as the GM stuck to the rules and the adventures at hand (the worst of them were Gygax' own IIRC… just hack-slash-hack-slash-and-yet-another-giant, while those of Doug Niles and Marc Acres were real killers. In the literal sense.) It got better once we made our own adventures, but it got a LOT better after we switched to other RPG systems with other methods of leveling up and more degrees of freedom.

If we didn't like something we got rid of it or changed it. Did that for some of the rules in Dragonlance. There was no D&D overlord to say we couldn't.

We did that, too, finally creating a game of our own. Which was a difficult process because some of us were stats fetishists while some others preferred higher degrees of freedom.

Anyways, my whole point of that little rant wasn't even about P&P.

I know, yet I still find it a really draconic penalty to force people to play D&D.

I meant in CRPGs and P&P RPGs you ARE the character.

But that goes for all video games. It's not a unique feature of CRPGs.

To see your character feeling a certain way when you don't or don't think the character should is strange. It sometimes breaks a game for me.

Well, if I was a frog I wouldn't try to cross the street,either, but that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy Frogger. In fact, some of the computer and video games that really sucked me in were not CRPGs at all.
But hey, it's all a matter of gusto (not necessarily gnusto).

What just happened? I'm talking about emo characters in JRPGs and we get a D&D rant (many valid points btw), and an analysis on western males. Jemmy, dude, I wasn't saying you shouldn't show emotion. I was saying I don't want my character on screen feeling something I may not.

Like the character in Dead Rising 2 didn't show that much emotion in the Snowflake cutscene. There was a little shock and trying to calm the situation, but for the most part the npcs themselves brought forth the horror of the situation even in this mostly arcade game. I was in no way implying that he should "man up". Hell I almost teared up at the end of that cutscene.

The point I'm trying very hard to make and seem to be failing miserably at is that I want to experience the game not the game forcing me to feel something I don't……

I know, yet I still find it a really draconic penalty to force people to play D&D

Thanks Jaz, funny stuff For some reason a woman with a whip popped in my mind forcing people to "ROLL THE DICE."

Here since I didn't seem to make myself clear on what I meant this poster, "ANewPoster", explains it better. He/she posted this in response to that idiotic blog. Basically I want an emotionless main character. A true avatar.

Spoiler

You seem to have missed the fundamental difference between games and other media – games involve agency. This is something which is particularly the case in games such as (W)RPGs, as the agency necessarily extends beyond gameplay to the narrative.

In a movie or book, essentially all of the details are placed before you. Yes, there might be subtext or other things hinted at but what is seen or read is not going to change just because you are reading it as opposed to me. (Our interpretations of it, or reactions to it, might differ but that is not the same thing.)

In a game, however, I shape my own experience. In a RPG, my choices for my character should have both narrative and gameplay consequences. This is true whether I play as myself or adopt some persona. In such an environment, having NPCs react emotionally to situations or to your actions seems fine – indeed, in many games, NPCs seem too nonplussed towards your actions. However, having the protagonist emote creates the danger of losing agency. This is because the protagonist may not be feeling the same emotions as the persona with which I have imbued him/her.

Like V. Profane stated, I think that Kate in GTA IV provides a good example of this. After the first compulsory date with Kate, my Niko completely ignored her. When I finally took her call, she said something like “you must really hate me”. This was a good (if small scale) example of emotional reactivity. Later on, however, Niko suddenly started caring for her. Why? I don’t know. My Niko didn’t care for her but the game’s Niko did, even though Kate herself had earlier recognised that Niko this wasn’t the case! The emotionality (or, more precisely, emotional voyeurism) of showing Niko attached to Kate robbed me of some control of Niko.

In your reply to V. Profane (who, as note earlier, raised a similar point), you stated that “Games writing is generally not confident enough to lead players through these circumstances in the way books and movies are”. It is a mistake to assume a deficit of ability when a deficit of motivation is also a plausible explanation. It is just as plausible as your argument to say that a lot of WRPG writers COULD write such scenes but CHOOSE not to (e.g. because of the position I am advancing).

As has been suggested elsewhere in these comments, ironically, it is “realism enhancing” features that are causing the problem here. Having a voiced protagonist, and seeing your protagonist’s react (e.g. in dialogue or cutscenes) causes problems when the protagonist is being written without a “true” emotional experience in mind. Stoic is a safe cover under which the player can infer whatever emotional state is applicable to the persona being played.

You might say that agency, at least in a narrative sense, doesn’t matter to you. That may be true but it doesn’t alter the fact that there are many others like me to whom it does matter. Consequently, you need to be careful that you don’t confuse emotional immaturity with preference for different types of experiences. This does not, of course, mean that immaturity in games is non-existent…

Originally Posted by skavenhorde
Jemmy, dude, I wasn't saying you shouldn't show emotion. I was saying I don't want my character on screen feeling something I may not.

No problem. What I said just have been on my mind recently so you kinda triggered me typing down my thoughts. Carry on.

— Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine

Just see it as a proof of your postings a) being read and b) speaking to the deepest recesses of our subconscious minds in a drive-by way, i.e. triggering all sorts of emotions . I wish I could do this!

Yo dawg! Saw you guys were chattin', so while passing by here's my theory on something you mentioned. That said, how are you?

— Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine